Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Presently, no study has compared the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUA) and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of through Mis-TLIF combined with BDUA and Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for the treatment of DLD, and reported the learning curve of the procedure of MIS-TLIF with BDUA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the prospectively collected data of consecutive DLD patients in the two groups from January 2016 to January 2020.

RESULTS

The operative time (OT) was significantly longer in the Mis-TLIF group (n = 113) than in the Open-TLIF group (n = 135). The postoperative drainage volume (PDV) and length of stay (LOS) were significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, the complication rate was significantly higher in the Open-TLIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group (14.8% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.030), while there was no significant difference in the reoperation and adjacent segment disease rates between the two groups. There were no significant differences in back pain and leg pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups preoperatively, at discharge, and 2 years postoperatively. Patients in both groups showed significant improvements in NRS scores and ODI scores after surgery. OT was negatively correlated with the number of surgeries performed (P < 0.001, r =  -0.43). The learning curve of Mis-TLIF with BDUA was steep, with OT tapered to steady state in 43 cases.

CONCLUSION

Compared with Open-TLIF with bilateral decompression, Mis-TLIF with BDUA can achieve equivalent clinical outcomes, lower PDV and LOS, and lower complication rates. Although this procedure took longer, it could be a viable alternative for the treatment of DLD after a steep learning curve.

Altered central pain processing in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases and its association with low physical activity levels after lumbar spinal surgeries: a retrospective cohort analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the occurrence of altered central pain modulation in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases (DLDs) and to analyze its association with physical activity (PA) 3 years after lumbar decompression and fusion.

METHODS

Preoperative assessments of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and pain were, respectively, recorded in 304 patients. These patients further underwent International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and both pain-related and psychological assessments 3 years post-operation.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, the patients had lower PPTs in both local pain and pain-free areas and lower CPM and higher TS in pain-free areas than healthy subjects (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, 53.9% (164/304) patients showed PA below healthy-related thresholds (< 600 MET min/w). Low PA group showed a greater postoperative weight gain and bone loss and a higher postoperative prevalence of both moderate anxiety and marginal depression than high PA group (P < 0.05). All covariates with differences between the high and low PA groups were subjected to multivariate logistic regression, and long preoperative disease duration, low preoperative PPT in pain-free area, high preoperative TS, revision surgery, severe postoperative low back pain and significant postoperative pain catastrophizing thought were independently associated with low postoperative PA (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the existence of central sensitization (CS) caused by abnormal central pain modulation in DLDs. Pre-existing CS in these patients may be associated with low PA after lumbar surgeries, and this low-activity lifestyle may predispose patients to multiple adverse health outcomes. Preoperative dynamic quantitative sensory testing may provide information for the identification of at-risk patients.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.

A novel mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: technical note and preliminary results

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective and popular surgical procedure for the management of various spinal pathologies, especially degenerative diseases. Surgeons have been pursuing minimally invasive technology as soon as TLIF was appeared. Currently, TLIF can be performed with transforaminal approaches by open surgery, minimally invasive surgery or percutaneous endoscope. We provide a detailed description of a new modified open TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws, which we refer to as mini-open TLIF. The objective of this study was to present feasibility of this procedure and the preliminary results.

METHODS

The study is a prospective study. From January 2021 to March 2022, 96 patients (43 males and 53 females) with neurological symptoms due to degenerative lumbar spine diseases were enrolled. Operation time, blood loss, ambulatory time, hematocrit and complications were recorded during perioperative period. Clinical symptoms were evaluated 1 week, 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively to emulate cross-sectional area of paraspinal muscles. The lumbar interbody fusion rate was evaluated by CT scanning.

RESULTS

The mean operation time of single level was 112.6 min, and the mean operation time of multilevel was 140.1 min. Intraoperative blood loss of single level was 64.5 ml and was 116.3 ml of multilevel. The VAS and ODI scores before and after surgery were significantly different (P < 0.0001) and reached minimal clinically important difference. Atrophy rate of paraspinal muscles was 2.5% for symptomatic side and 1.2% for asymptomatic side. The cross-sectional area before and after the operation and atrophy rate had no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mini-open TLIF is effective and feasible for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases especially in multilevel disease, with minor damage to muscle and shorter operation time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (No. JD-LK2023045-I01).

Hounsfield unit value on CT as a predictor of cage subsidence following stand-alone oblique lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases

BACKGROUND

To investigate the correlation between vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) values and cage subsidence in patients treated with stand-alone (SA) OLIF.

METHODS

A retrospective review of collected data was performed on 76 patients who underwent SA OLIF. We utilized the HU value for lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) obtained on preoperative CT. The vertebral HU values of patients with subsidence were compared to those without subsidence. The correlation between cage subsidence and clinical score was investigated.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (21.1%) had at least radiographic evidence of interbody cage subsidence. The average cage subsidence was 2.5 ± 1.3 mm (range 0.9-4.8 mm). There were no significant differences in sex, BMI, preoperative diagnoses, or fused level (p > 0.05); however, there were significant differences between the cage subsidence group and the nonsubsidence group in age, average of the lowest T-score, and average HU value, including for the L1 vertebrae, L1-L4 horizontal plane, and L1-L4 sagittal plane (p < 0.05). The average HU value of the L1-L4 horizontal plane showed a more predictable AUC of 0.909 (95% CI, 0.834-0.984; P < 0.001) compared with the average of the lowest T-score following an AUC of 0.791 (95% CI, 0.674-0.909; P < 0.001). Based on logistic regression analysis, the average HU value of the L1-L4 horizontal plane (OR, 0.912; 95% CI, 0.861-0.966; P = 0.002) was an independent factor influencing cage subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lower average HU values of the lumbar vertebrae are at a much higher risk of developing cage subsidence after SA OLIF. Measurement of preoperative HU values on preexisting CT scans could be rapid, simple and feasible.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

RESULTS

Seven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID:  CRD42020201903 .

Instrumented Posterolateral fusion versus instrumented Interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases in uremic patients under hemodialysis

Background

Advances in hemodialysis have facilitated longer lifespan and better quality of life for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Symptomatic degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD) becomes more common in patients with ESRD. Posterior instrumented fusion remains popular for spinal stenosis combining instability. Only a few sporadic studies mentioned about surgical outcomes in patients with ESRD underwent spine surgeries, but no one discussed about which fusion method was optimal for this kind of patients. In this study, we compared the differences between lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) and lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) in uremic patients underwent instrumented lumbar surgeries.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2017, ESRD patients under maintenance hemodialysis underwent posterior instrumented fusion for DLD were reviewed. A PLF group and an IBF group were identified. The demographic data was collected using their medical records. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS); radiographic results were assessed using final fusion rates. Any surgical or implant-related complication was documented.

Results

A total of 34 patients (22 women and 12 men, mean age of 65.4 years) in PLF group and 45 patients (26 women and 19 men, mean age of 65.1 years) in IBF group were enrolled. Both groups had similar surgical levels. The operation time was longer (200.9 vs 178.3 min, p = 0.029) and the amount of blood loss was higher (780.0 vs 428.4 ml, p = 0.001) in the IBF group. The radiographic fusion rate was better in the PLF group but without significant difference (65.2% vs 58.8%, p = 0.356). Seven in the PLF group and ten in the IBF group developed surgical complications (20.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.788); three patients in the PLF group (8.8%) and five patients in the IBF group (11.1%) received revision surgeries because of implant-related or wound complications. Comparing to preoperative ODI and VAS, postoperative ODI and VAS obtained significant improvement in both groups.

Conclusions

Successful fusion rates and clinical improvement (VAS, ODI) were similar in IBF and PLF group. Uremic patients underwent IBF for DLD had longer length of operation and higher operative blood loss than underwent PLF.

Perioperative complications associated with minimally invasive surgery of oblique lumbar interbody fusions for degenerative lumbar diseases in 113 patients

OBJECTIVES

To describe perioperative complications occurring during oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) assisted by a retractor system for degenerative lumbar diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The perioperative complications in 113 cases series utilizing a minimally invasive approach were recorded and analyzed. One hundred thirteen patients who received OLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases between November 2014 and February 2017 at a single center were evaluated. The most frequent diagnosis was spondylolisthesis (59 cases, 52.2%), followed by lumbar instability (24 cases, 21.2%), adjacent segmental disease (12 cases, 10.6%), adult degenerative scoliosis (11 cases, 9.8%) and discogenic low back pain (7 cases, 6.2%). One hundred thirty-four levels were treated, 88.5% one-level, 4.4% two-level, and 7.1% three-level surgeries. The most fused level was L4-5 (94 levels, 70.2%), followed by L3-4 (31 levels, 23.1%), and L2-3 (9 levels, 6.7%).

RESULTS

All perioperative complications only included adverse events related to the OLIF procedure. The most observed complications were donor-site pain (24 cases, 21.2%), followed by vertebral endplate fracture (15 cases, 13.3%), thigh numbness/pain (12 cases, 10.6%), psoas/quadriceps weakness (5 cases, 4.4%), sympathetic nerve injury (2 case, 1.8%), paralytic ileus (one case, 0.9%), segmental artery injury (one case, 0.9%), intervertebral infection (one, 0.9%), and contralateral femoral nerve palsy (one, 0.9%). All complications, including postoperative ipsilateral or contralateral thigh paresthesia, pain, and psoas/quadriceps weakness, were observed when operating at L4-L5. The incidence of complications excluding donor-site pain was 24.8% (28/113 cases). The patients with donor-site pain, thigh numbness/pain, psoas/quadriceps weakness, sympathetic nerve injury and paralytic ileus recovered within two months following surgery. The patient with intervertebral infection recovered at 3 months after surgery. One case of contralateral femoral nerve palsy recovered completely with no residual sensory or motor deficit at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF performed using a retractor system is a validated option to treat a wide spectrum of degenerative lumbar diseases with few perioperative complications and a quick recovery. Judicious use of this technique at the L4/5 level is recommended. Close attention to detail during the procedure can minimize complications that may be associated with the learning curve.

[Effects of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lordosis correction in degenerative lumbar diseases]

Objective: To compare the operation time, estimated blood loss, clinical outcome and correction of lumbar lordosis between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: Seventy-three patients who underwent OLIF or TLIF surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Zhejiang University were analyzed in this retrospective case-control study. The patients included 31 males and 42 females, with a mean age of 65.8 years (range, 36-88 years). Of the patients, there were 9 cases of calcified disc herniation, 34 cases of spinal stenosis, 17 cases of degenerative spondylolithesis, 12 cases of degenerative scoliosis and 1 case of isthmic spondylolithesis. According to the type of surgery, patients were divided into OLIF group (34 cases) and TLIF group (39 cases). The operation time, estimated blood loss and transfusion were recorded, pre-and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated, and pre- and post-operative lumbar lordosis (LL) and fused segment lordosis (FSL) were measured. Student t test were used in comparison between groups. Results: Ten (29.4%) patients in OLIF group and all 39 (100%) patients in TLIF group were supplemented with posterior instrumentation (χ(2)=41.013, P<0.05). The average operation time and estimated blood loss was significantly lower in OLIF group than in those in TLIF group[(163±68) vs (233±79) min, (116±148) vs (434±201) ml, t=4.019, 6.964, both P<0.05]. There was no significant differences in decreases value in VAS and ODI after surgery between the two groups (t=1.716, 0.522, both P>0.05). The correction of LL was 4.0°±10.0° in the OLIF group and 4.2°±6.1° in the TLIF group; the correction of FSL was 4.1°±7.0° in the OLIF group and 5.2°±4.6° in the TLIF group, with no significant differences between the two groups too (t=0.139, 0.805, both P>0.05). The correction of LL was significantly higher in OLIF group with posterior instrumentation than that in TLIF group (9.9°±11.1° vs 4.2°±6.1°, t=2.180, P<0.05). Conclusions: Both OLIF and TLIF can restore LL to some extent, but OLIF has obvious advantages in the operation time and blood loss during surgery. When supplemented with posterior instrumentation, OLIF can achieve better correction of LL than TLIF.

[Clinical efficacy of unilateral percutaneous transfacet screws combined with contralateral pedicle screw versus bilateral pedicle screws fixation in the treatment of the degenerative lumbar disease]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the surgical outcome of unilateral pedicle screw(UPS) after TLIF technique combined with contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw(PTS) fixation vs bilateral pedicle screws(BPS) fixation in treatment of degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

From January 2009 to June 2012, 46 patients with degenerative lumbar diseases, including 30 males and 16 females with an average age of 51.5 years old, who were divided into two groups according to different fixation methods. Twenty-two cases underwent UPS after TLIF technique combined with contralateral PTS fixation (group A), while the others underwent BPS fixation(group B). The relative data were analyzed, such as blood loss volume, operative time, fusion rate, ODI score, JOA score and so on.

RESULTS

All the patients were followed up for 1 to 3 years with an average of 22 months. Except one case of each group was uncertainty fusion, the rest have obtained bony fusion, and the fusion rates in group A and B were 95.5% and 95.8%, respectively. No displacement and breakage of screw were found during follow-up. Operative time and blood loss volume in group A were better than of group B(P<0.05). ODI and JOA scores had improved obviously than preoperation(P<0.05), but the differences had no statistical significance between two groups(P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Two approaches had similar clinical outcomes for degenerative lumbar disease with no severe instability. Compared with BPS fixation, the UPS after TLIF technique and contralateral PTS fixation has the advantages of less trauma, shorter operative time and less blood loss, and it is a safe and feasible surgical technique.

Is it possible to preserve lumbar lordosis after hybrid stabilization? Preliminary results of a novel rigid-dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar pathologies

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To evaluate the results of a novel rigid-dynamic stabilization technique in lumbar degenerative segment diseases (DSD), expressly pointing out the preservation of postoperative lumbar lordosis (LL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one patients with one level lumbar DSD and initial disc degeneration at the adjacent level were treated. Circumferential lumbar arthrodesis and posterior hybrid instrumentation were performed to preserve an initial disc degeneration above the segment that has to be fused. Clinical and spino-pelvic parameters were evaluated pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 2-year follow-up, a significant improvement of clinical outcomes was reported. No statistically significant difference was noted between postoperative and 2-year follow-up in LL and in disc/vertebral body height ratio at the upper adjacent fusion level.

CONCLUSIONS

When properly selected, this technique leads to good results. A proper LL should be achieved after any hybrid stabilization to preserve the segment above the fusion.

Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. The reported incidence of perioperative complications associated with MIS-TLIF surgery is highly variable. Studies concerning perioperative complications in broad patient populations are quite rare. This study analyzes a retrospectively collected database of patients who underwent an MIS-TLIF surgery at a single center.

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of perioperaive complications with MIS-TLIF procedure based on our definition of Type I and II perioperative complications.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study; a review of complications.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample comprises 204 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Type I complication including all medical adverse events without direct connection to the specific surgical procedure performed. Type II complication including adverse events with direct connection to the surgical procedure performed.

METHODS

A total of 204 MIS-TLIF surgeries on lumbar instability or spondylolisthesis, performed between June 2007 and July 2012, were examined in a retrospective study. A complication classification based on the relation to the surgical procedure and the effect duration was used. Perioperative complications until 1 month postoperatively were reviewed for the patients.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 204 patients (106 women, 98 men; mean age at surgery, 52.4 years; age range, 39-84 years). Overall, there were 75 perioperative complications in 204 patients (36.76%). Only one complication occurred in 54 patients. Nine patients had two complications. One patient had three complications. The incidence of perioperative complication was 31.37% (64/204 patients) in the MIS-TLIF operations. Of all complications, seven (9.33%) were classified as persistent complications and 68 (90.67%) were classified as transient complications. The incidence of Type I and II complications were 13.73% and 23.04%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion has gained popularity as a procedure for the treatment of lumbar instability or spondylolisthesis, with similar complications as in the open surgery. Transient sensory disturbance was the most common complication in this series.